The New Civil War: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Control

According to Andrew O’Hehir at Salon, we are in “the new civil war” between the “neo-Confederacy” (Dixie and the Interior West) and the “neo-Union” (the Northeast, West Coast, Upper Midwest). “Lincoln” and “Django Unchained” have stimulated some anti-Southern articles on the Far Left:

“So even though it’s a truism of American public discourse that the Civil War never ended, it’s also literally true. We’re still reaping the whirlwind from that long-ago conflict, and now we face a new Civil War, one focused on divisive political issues of the 21st century – most notably the rights and liberties of women and LGBT people – but rooted in toxic rhetoric and ideas inherited from the 19th century. . .

If you correlate the states where both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions have been banned and the states with the harshest restrictions on abortion, you begin to measure the breadth of the neo-Confederacy: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, the Dakotas, the Carolinas, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah. Most (but not all) are onetime Southern slave states and hotbeds of evangelical Christianity, and most (but not all) coincide with the familiar red-blue split between Republicans and Democrats. The battleground states of the moment, on these issues as on many others, are strikingly familiar: Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. All four are currently in the grip of neo-Confederate forces on a state level, and all four have enacted gay-marriage bans and abortion restrictions, even though Obama won them all in both of his election campaigns. …”

The Confederate position all along was that slavery was merely the occasion of the war, the incident which ignited the clash of civilizations between Dixie and New England over the power of the central government, and that the abolitionists had ulterior motives in agitating the slavery question:

“We warn the North, that every one of the leading Abolitionists is agitating the negro slavery-question merely as a means to attain ulterior ends, and those ends nearer home. They would not spend so much time and money for the mere sake of the negro or his master, about whom they care little. But they know that men once fairly committed to negro slavery agitation — once committed to the sweeping principle, “that man being a moral agent, accountable to God for his actions, should not have those actions controlled and directed by the will of another,” are, in effect, committed to Socialism and Communism, to the most ultra doctrines of Garrison, Goodell, Smith and Andrews — to no private property, no church, no law, no government, — to free love, free lands, free women and free churches.

There is no middle ground — not an inch of ground of any sort, between the doctrines which we hold and those which Mr. Garrison holds. If slavery, either white or black, be wrong in principle or practice, then is Mr. Garrison right — then is all human government wrong.

Socialism, not Abolition, is the real object of Black Republicanism. The North, not the South, the true battle-ground. … The Abolition school of Socialists like it because it is intolerable — because they consider it a transition state to a form of society without law or government. Miss Wright has the honesty to admit, that a transition has never taken place. No; and never will take place: because the expulsion of human nature is a pre-requisite to its occurrence.

But we solemnly warn the North, that what she calls a transition is what every leading Abolitionist is moving heaven and earth to attain. This is their real object — negro emancipation a mere gull-trap.

In the attempt to attain “transition” seas of gore may be shed, until military despotism comes in to restore peace and security.”

Yesterday’s Southern reactionaries like George Fitzhugh in the 1850s or Sen. Theodore Bilbo in the 1940s were later vindicated by history. The “transition” to socialism and communism gained steam after the war: negro equality, women’s suffrage, globalism, feminism, the War on Christmas, “LGBT rights,” etc.

In the movie “Lincoln,” the House erupts at the insane argument made by Fernando Wood that abolition would lead to negro equality. The gathering menace in the Northeast always turns out to be worse than the most dire reactionary predictions.

88 Responses to The New Civil War: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Control

Alternately you could go to the logical endpoint an support “new slavery” in the reconstituted Republic of Dixie.

Some here such as myself support what you call “new slavery” as an ideal not a litmus test. Taking The Bible, classical civilization and the original Constitution into consideration, what’s wrong with slavery? Where would that kind of foundation be found wanting? Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Dreams of my Father, Communist Manifesto, UN Charters?

It’s an absurd question because modern agriculture is capital intensive, not labor intensive. Sharecroppers were driven out of the cotton and tobacco fields decades ago once mechanization made them obsolete.

5.) Hundreds of thousands of Yankees died for negro equality and the Gilded Age.

6.) As I pointed out above, cotton production has shifted to Texas and the Southwest and the negro is now completely redundant in cotton and tobacco. The Alabama Black Belt now grows timber, soybeans, and peanuts and negroes are also redundant in those commodities.

John B.: Freedom to do what we want with our own property, to rent to whoever we like, to sell to who we like, to serve who we so choose, to see the South and our heritage respected, to have an immigration policy that places the good of the citizen over the egos of politicians, to protect our religion, to recognize the difference between our men and women, to have male only military schools, to have segregated classrooms, to be Southern and to preserve our Southern heritage from the most meddling, do- gooder, fanatic sodomite athiests known to man. The South will die if it does not unhook from this express train to turd world despotism known as the Union.

To bring back forced labor in prisons (yes, John B., chain gangs, with shackles on their ankles), to allow towns, cities and States to implement the laws they need to protect tgeir communities without interference from the black robed whores, etc, etc…

If the 10th Amendment had any force, these objectives could be atrained through States rights only, keeping the Union. But raving lunatic fanatic delusional God- hating Yankees wont allow that. If the Union ends, don’ t blame the South.

The intelligent position would have been to have never created the Union in the first place.

Why? So North and South would have ended up warring with each other, anyway, over expansion to the West? (“Oh, no, that wouldn’t have happened. The South would’ve been content to be part of the Golden Circle. The South just wanted to be left alone.”) Dixie Evasiveness: Two Hundred Years and Counting.

Looking at it from the purely (or should I write “impurely”) carnal point of view, we could find many other tasks for them, and perhaps having one, or more, standing around as house servants would serve us well as a status symbol in the slave-owning society of the future. A certain amount of cultural erosion (even they can influence and change our speech, music, etc., a little, over a long time of direct exposure) and genetic erosion (through the occasional miscegenation) would be expected. They could also weaken our work ethic.

Freedom to do what we want with our own property, to rent to whoever we like, to sell to who we like, to serve who we so choose, to see the South and our heritage respected, to have an immigration policy that places the good of the citizen over the egos of politicians, to protect our religion, to recognize the difference between our men and women, to have male only military schools, to have segregated classrooms, to be Southern and to preserve our Southern heritage from the most meddling, do- gooder, fanatic sodomite athiests known to man.

I’m just talking about slavery, Wayne. That was the subject of Mr. Wallace’s post.

“If the 10th Amendment had any force, these objectives could be atrained through States rights only, keeping the Union.” The only states-rights Presidential candidate received (shockingly!) much less support in the southern states than elsewhere. Instead, they voted overwhelmingly for the usual anti-states-rights Federalist Neocon agenda.

“The Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 … without a shot being fired. It stretches all the way to the Pacific.” Not entirely smoothly. The Quebecois French were incorporated rather involuntarily, and many Acadians exiled.

It’s an absurd question because modern agriculture is capital intensive, not labor intensive. Sharecroppers were driven out of the cotton and tobacco fields decades ago once mechanization made them obsolete.

…

As I pointed out above, cotton production has shifted to Texas and the Southwest and the negro is now completely redundant in cotton and tobacco. The Alabama Black Belt now grows timber, soybeans, and peanuts and negroes are also redundant in those commodities.

Spare Occidental Dissent’s followers, including me, this nonsense. Answer the questions that, as Jackson said above, you dance around a lot:

Will the reconstituted “Republic of Dixie” permit chattel slavery, or not? Will such slavery be limited to Blacks, or open to all races?

If we eliminated the welfare state, blacks would have to pick tomatoes, strawberries, oranges, onions and other crops that now have to resort to Hispanic guest workers.

….

Wayne

To bring back forced labor in prisons (yes, John B., chain gangs, with shackles on their ankles)

Yankees operate on the flimsy premise that slavery which can be understood in large part as forced labor is immoral. By extension so are chaingangs. Gutting the welfare state is tantamount to forced labor hence inconsistent with Yankee values. Not only that but Negroes would be lower than untouchables in a libertarian paradise which means structural racism.

Now that the world’s flotsam has pole-vaulted into mainstream America the utter failure of negroes grows more conspicuous and requires increasingly radical approaches to solve. Miscegenation is now promoted as a last ditch effort. Miscegenation in this society means less white babies and “child support” to pickaninnies ie wealth redistribution. Aggressive wm/bf miscegenation coupled with anti-manumission laws and geldings of bucks until the slaves were 23/24ths white would have been the way to phase slavery out because as long as there are Negroes there will be slavery. The only question is them or us because they’re immue to market incentives.

1.) As I have explained, black and White sharecroppers continued to work in the cotton fields into the 1940s and 1950s, and it was the mechanization of agriculture after WW2, not the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, that eliminated the need for intensive labor in traditional crops like cotton, sugar, rice and tobacco.

2.) Modern agriculture is capital intensive. Only a small and dwindling fraction of the population works in agriculture these days. There is no constituency including modern agribusiness that supports the restoration of slavery.

3.) Blacks have been migrating out of the Black Belt for over a century now. There is less need for their services than ever before.

4.) I’ve already addressed that question in “My Strategy.” A reconstituted “Republic of Dixie” probably wouldn’t even be in a position to strip blacks of their citizenship much less restore slavery.

5.) Personally, I would jettison the Thirteenth Amendment for symbolic reasons and throw the issue back to the states, but I don’t expect any state would restore slavery. It would be another moot issue like the thousands of moot issues (i.e., regulation of stagecoaches, the telegraph, etc.) that have been addressed in old statutes but which are irrelevant in the modern South.

Looking at it from the purely (or should I write “impurely”) carnal point of view, we could find many other tasks for them, and perhaps having one, or more, standing around as house servants would serve us well as a status symbol in the slave-owning society of the future.

You haven’t studied the economics of slavery vs. free labor.

Domestic service in the cities was highly elastic. The sort of gang labor performed on cotton plantations in the countryside was inelastic. Already before the war, Bonaccorsi’s bête noire Leonidas Spratt was complaining about how Irish immigrants were replacing slaves in Charleston.

In the 21st century, expensive machines have replaced slaves in the tasks that used to be done on antebellum cotton plantations.

Thanks for the wonderful idea of miscegenation tax credits. I will definitely propose that in my circles. If you are really serious about lowering the crime rate and you really believe that blacks commit crime because of genetics, you should support complete miscegenation and then the problems you mention should go away in a couple generations. You are held back from this though by your southern/white culture nonsense, which is just as idiotic as most of what the left-wing cultural academic feminist sociologists talk about. The fact is that young people are socially and romantically mixing the races more than ever before and few see a problem with it. We should probably give the white people a little nation and see how fantastically it would fail and have fun watching that. Back to the topic, gay marriage is a white/Jewish idea which our black brothers and sisters, as well as Hispanics and Asians and Arabs, are trying to protect us from, yet you bigots are ungrateful. Sure equality is not easy, but it is a lot better than the alternative, and we can have it without everything else which seems to be going along with it. Yes that’s my position. And racial segregation violates the rights of the segregated more than it protects anybody’s rights, so that’s the answer to that. Lower-class whites should not have to pay for the welfare state; it should mostly be the billionaires and they don’t deserve freedom and rights.

The civil war was a long fought battle that lasted three and half years though they anticipated a short victory within a year. The issue of slavery thus became propaganda morality to carry on the conflict of the North
If the slaves were brutally mistreated as Yankees propagated, why didn’t negros flee en mass to north?
Union soldiers realized during and after the war the slaves were housed and clothe and well treated and not as their master depict the Dixie as barbarians.
ww1 ww2 the Brits and America concocted Germans atrocity to enter the war. G.I. were dismay of the civility contrary propaganda that prolonged the war.

“If you are really serious about lowering the crime rate, and you really believe that blacks commit crime because of genetics, you should support complete miscegenation and then the problems you mention should go away in a couple generations.”

The clash took place over the position of the freed blacks. In the period before the Civil War, the South was very unwise to insist on maintaining slavery. An intelligent position would have been to offer to abandon slavery, on condition that North and South work together to separate the races.

Any fool can use his common sense and arrive at the position that the Yankee scum did not wage a war of aggression against the South over niggers or their servitude. Likewise, any fool can use his common sense and and arrive at the position that he’d rather not share a foxhole with you, or likewise cunts.

That is exactly what miscegenation (esp. black+white) is. It’s a one-time one-way transfer of genetic wealth. As you say , it’s the “last” because it shackles the inner egalitarianism to lower IQ and phenotypic markers that repulse most people. Take Obama for instance, be has a burning desire to be a liberal intellectual. He’s genetically incapable of being more than a figurehead with a radioactive past buried under a parking-lot by his white handlers. Miscegenation undermines egalitarianism. Throw a couple hundred Obamas into Haiti and see what they do without Axelrods. Count the bodies.

It would be interesting to see letters from Union soldiers who regretted their service.

Even racists like Francis P. Blair died with clean conscience. Reading Dixon’s The Clansman or watching BOAN is crucial to understanding the post-war racialist narrative. Lincoln is hailed as the best president in American history, with a “lion’s heart” with a noble visage that kinda “looks southern”. He pardons the protagonist and starts supporting white power until a wild man named Booth (“vain as a peacock”) murders him. When Lincoln dies southern families are distraught over losing “their only friend”. That little fact of losing twbts was actually “for the best”.

No Yankee veteran back then could have predicted modern BRA, much less regret being a hero. Lincoln’s well-deserved execution wasn’t appreciated the way it is today because few had the foresight of Booth and other American patricians. Dixon was a great writer, a solid Christian and racist but still an overeducated Scots-Irish with dirty feet that liked female suffrage because it meant more white votes and had an anti-monarchist/anti-European tendency. Southerners like him were eager to believe reconstruction was a misunderstanding having to do with a few radicals not their honorable Yankee conquerors.